Warp wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
>>No I believe one judge in a few comments indulged in proselytizing 
>>against the viability of mesh modeling.  And that that is dangerous 
>>because when stated by an official, can induce a generalized set of 
>>values and preferences.
> 
> 
>   So basically you are saying that the judging principles were
> (probably) ok, but the judges' comments published along the entries
> could have been more mature and careful at some points (because as
> they are they can give the wrong impression to some people)?
> 
>   If that is your point, then I suppose I can't argue.
>   I just got the impression from your post that you were also attacking
> the judging process itself and that you got the impression this was
> an "sdl-only" competition.
> 

That is correct.  I hope that distinction was evident from my first post 
  though I admit that my choice of words there was very strong.  Maybe 
too strong.  I really abhor this particular prejudice as I have 
struggled from the beginning to employ mesh modeling in a continuum with 
other techniques.

St. wrote:
> Hey, I *LOVE* PoVRay. Let's get that straight, first and foremost. I
> think most of you know that.
>
>   BUT... but...
>
>  After reviewing the judges comments on the winners excellent image,
> I know I won't ever have a chance. Ever. It should be called
> "POVONLYCOMP"!
>
>    Here are some of the comments if you haven't seen them yet:
>
>    "Highly commendable that it did not rely on any imports but that
> the author made use of POV-ray facitities exclusively"
>
>   "A big plus for using extensively the primitives and features of
> POV-Ray (instead of resorting to cheap meshes created by third-party
> tools)"
>
> "Cheap meshes"??!! Try it some time buddy. You'll find it hard to get
> what you want after 10+ days...! (This comment, I have great
> exception to).
>
>   No disrespect to some of those commentors, but after five years+
> using POV-Ray, I DO feel insulted. Especially when the PoVComp rules
> state that: "To be accepted in the competition an entry has to be
> rendered with POV-Ray", - being the number ONE (1) rule in 4. IMAGES
> -  For all PoV-Ray users... That's me, and 'some' of 'you' too.
>
>   I did that, I used POV, but wouldn't have had a chance in hell of
> winning even if my image was better than anyone elses because I
> solely use Wings for my models now, (who wouldn't if they don't have
> the time to work out ALL the maths that's NEEDED to produce a 'PoV
> only' image!!)
>
>   I can accept that, just, BUT, don't *tempt* me to use up my time
> when it's just not going to happen with <whatever> image I might try
> to submit.
>
>  My dismal, failed, attempts, (two), at an image for the POVCOMP cost
> 'me' money and time for your (not very good, inconsiderate, and
> naive) gain.
>
>   Say what you like, I know I'm right.

FWIW I agree with your comments.  In order to produce a "world class" image
with POV, it is better to spend the time on lighting / textures than
modelling.

POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

Of course POV is great for creating certain types of models, the built in
SDL is very powerful and allows you to create certain objects very quickly
and efficiently.  But you have to look hard to find these types of models,
in real life most objects would be easier, faster and more accurate to model
with a modelling package.

In terms of what images look "world class" from the results, I would have
ordered them differently, as would the two people I've spoken to who have
never used POV.

I think it really needs to be made clear whether any future competitions are
to *render* world class images with POV, or create world class scenes with
POV.  I understood the former was most important, but maybe I was a bit
wrong.

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I find with
> using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges on anything but
> very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to make the difference
> between photorealistic and "computer generated" IMHO.

  Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition doesn't
make it so.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> POV is not suitable for creating most models, the main problem I
>> find with using CSG is that it is very hard to produce rounded edges
>> on anything but very simple shapes.  Rounded edges go a long way to
>> make the difference between photorealistic and "computer generated"
>> IMHO.
>
>   Just because St. says that povcomp was a "CSG-only" competition
> doesn't make it so.

Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
*image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
a "scene" competition.

But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
POV can create.

scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

  Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

  One of the goals of this competition was to show what POV-Ray can
do *more* than other renderers.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

news:4222fc01$1@news.povray.org...

> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an
image
> POV can create.

It's a POV-Ray competition called POVCOMP, so it's a given that how well
POV-Ray is used is unavoidably part of the judgement, cf the mission
statement about the "full potential of POV-Ray" (*). It's also a given that
the final image has to be world-class. The top images, and particularly the
5 top ones, fulfill both expectations so that non-POV people can be wowed
because these are good images that stand on their own AND because they're
made with a free raytracer.

The winners won because they made damn fine pics, and they were able to make
them with POV-Ray because they are skilled artists. Replace "POV-Ray" with
"oil painting" and it would be the same. It's really that simple, and
doesn't warrant further exegesis/speculation/interpretation.

G.

(*) indeed, a competitor entered 2 images that were just a Rhino model
exported to POV-Ray without any change to the default camera, lighting and
texture. These images were not considered to be valid entries.

-- 

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> I was
>> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good
>> an image POV can create.
>
>   Basically any renderer supporting meshes and simple lighting models
> can render impressive images if the models and textures are superb.

True, but the real skill lies in being able to decide which way to do
things.  Do you use CSG/mesh? Do you use textures in Photoshop or SDL
pigment? etc etc  In most situations there are many ways of achieving the
same result, there is little point in choosing a method that will take much
more of your time up, it will merely waste your time that could be better
spent on improving your scene further.

Anyway, as with all competitions that are "judged", nobody is ever going to
agree 100% with the results, that's just the way it is.  Everyone had the
same set of rules to work by, it is impossible that it was unfair in any
way.

Gilles Tran wrote:

  Replace "POV-Ray" with
> "oil painting" and it would be the same. 

Nice analoque! But you know you tempt me Gilles, you know you tempt me. ;)

But let me also reinforce, I agree absolutely with the judging and would 
deeply regret it if any imput I have had in this thread has in anyway 
suggested I did not or cast any kind of aspersion on the contest and 
it's outcome.  The top images provide me with a target to aim for in my 
own development for quality and artistry and I truly hope I might get there.

I do not think it was a mistake to raise the issue I raised, but it is 
entirely separate from questioning the premise of the contest, its 
conduct, judging, and outcome.

Hi Scott, sounds like the discussion we had months ago... again.  You
mentioned the term "world class" for quite a number of times, I am just
curious to know what's your meaning of world class. It appears that you'd
consider photorealistic images to be world class, as compared to something
that looks more "computer generated". And you are probably correct, as I
don't think
there is a right/wrong way to interpret something like this. And too I
believe "The Kitchen" is also worthy of the first prize for the superb
lighting, texture and detail, which are things that you consider as
elements to a world class image. (I do, for a fact, respect the way the
images were judged).

My interpretation of a world class image is somewhat different, largely due
to the kind of works I have been seeing around the 3D community for the
past years.  As the graphics software gets better and better, the artists
can often generate photorealist images that resembles closer and closer to
our physical world. They are very pretty indeed, as I am often amazed at
what CG can do nowadays. But photorealism has a limit, how real can you
make your image when? Until a point when you can no longer distinguish
between a photograph and CG?  Centries ago people don't have the luxury to
do floating point or radiosity calculation on their canvas or oil paints,
but why do people spend thosands of dollar to buy these paintings? My point
is, photorealism does not necessarily equal to an world class image (no
offense to any winning entries), it is an
element that the artist can choose to use to express his/her ideas.  I enjoy
watching graphics in fantasy/mystical games as they often depict worlds
that look real (lighting and physics), yet you as an observer, knows that
it is something that cannot exist in our world. Images that show
originality (Victoria's World for example) and creativity in addition to
photorealism are, in my opinion, world class images.  In fact, I will be
pretty interested to see more abstract images made using CG. What makes
your image stands out from all these other images, when every image is
equally photorealist.

You mentioned "*how* it was created shouldn't have affected the judging or
the comments if it was truly an "image" competition" and you were "under
the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image POV
can create", aren't they a bit contradicting?

Anyhow, your points are valid, though, I would consider anything a waste of
my time if it does not have a purpose. As I mentioned before, my goal was
not to ultimately win anything, and my purpose was the .  When one can
accomplish something that is driven by a purpose in the broader scheme of
things, then it very rewarding as well.

Just another piece of thought
J

"scott" <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Of course, but I understood the competition was about creating a world class
> *image* using POV.  If this really was the case, the judges should have
> judged the images with no knowledge of how it was created.  Of course
> afterwards they can check that is was actually created in a way that
> complied with the rules, but *how* it was created shouldn't have affected
> the judging or the comments if it was truly an "image" competition, and not
> a "scene" competition.
>
> But as I said, maybe I misunderstood (most likely) and there was some
> element of creating a good "scene" as well as a good final image.  I was
> under the impression it was to show off to non-POV people how good an image
> POV can create.

You know, in these types of debates, I think it occasionally helps to take
examples to ridiculous extremes, in order to make a point. Please don't
misinterpret this post as an implication that anyone has previously made
similarly silly statements during the course of this thread.

I think we can all agree that it actually does matter how the scene was
created. Some hypothetical person could actually generate a very beautiful,
compelling image with photographs, photo editing programs, paint programs,
other rendering programs, etc. This wonderful image could then be mapped
onto a plane, lit, and rendered with POV. The result may look very nice,
but the image is obviously not eligible for any recognition in a POV-Ray
competition. Although POV-Ray was used to render the image, and it may end
up being the "best" image that is submitted, it does not at all make good
use of POV-Ray's capabilities.

If you can agree with me on this, then you must be forced to admit that some
consideration needs to be given to the method of image creation, beyond
simply "rendered with POV-Ray". Again, remember that this is an intentional
exaggeration. Now, you can extrapolate this inane example through a series
of more sane situations that could include some textures created outside of
POV, some models created outside of POV, all the way out to the other
extreme in which the entire image is SDL generated. I think that we can all
agree that any image in which everything that you see in the image was
generated entirely in SDL would likely be eligible for consideration in a
POV-Ray competition.

Now, somewhere along that spectrum, you need to make a cutoff point that
says that anything over here is eligible, whereas anything beyond this
point is unacceptable. We may not all agree as to where that cutoff point
is, but I think we can all agree that such a point absolutely must exist.
Beyond this, I think that it is also obvious that any images that are

would probably be upstaged by images that are further down the spectrum

appearance since, remember, we are only talking about very good images
here, but in terms of adhering to the spirit of the competition.

The bottom line is that it is possible to create some dazzling images
without the use of POV-Ray. You can create some dazzling images that just
happen to use POV-Ray to render them, but nothing about them really
demonstrates the power of POV-Ray as a tool. You can also create some
dazzling images that make great use of POV-Ray and the flexibility that
this wonderful program offers. The blatant purpose of this competition was
to show off the power of POV-Ray as an image creation tool. It should come
as no surprise to people that the images were judged based on how well they

tools does require a lot of skill, and can produce very pleasing results,
but for the purposes of this specific competition, it is no different than
my Photoshop example above. Photoshop, Illustrator, photography, etc. all
require a lot of skill as well, and when used effectively, can produce some
very nice results. Neither one showcases POV-Ray in the way that the
contest intended.

 - dan B hentschel